Everyone - Like Carl, I agree with Jim's argument below. In both my dealings with hams in my community, around my section and division, I get the very real sense that members are becoming skeptical in ARRL as far as its actions and the perception (don't shoot the messenger here) that there is a growing gap between the League and its dues-paying membership. Of course I jump right in and speak to these concerns with these folks with what the League has been up to on their behalf, and ham radio's behalf. But the existence of their concerns says something that we might take a good, hard look at. I will acknowledge that there are those in the ham community and even some members who will never be pleased. They (description of a female dog in heat) and moan but don't offer solutions or volunteer their time. I'm not concerned with them one bit. On the other hand, the above concerns come from hams who are active in the community and on the air. That strikes me. There is also the group of hams who are impressionable and hear (or read on forums) nothing but negative comments, rumors or misinformation about the League from negative folks. That strikes me, even if those impressionable people can't do their own research or think for themselves, because they then might depart with a negative view on the League no matter how misguided it is. That hurts us, and ends up hurting potential members, and feeds the skepticism about the League. I believe we need to counter this by, as Jim mentioned below, marketing not only ourselves more but especially marketing our product which not only affects League members, but the larger group of Hams in the community who are NOT League members as well. We've done our best up till now, but I'm thinking something needs to be done better. What exactly, I'm still not sure, but I submit to you that the topic should be discussed especially since we appear to be in the midst of retracting a very controversial FCC proposal (after a controversial addendum) in order to resubmit a better product to the same jury that makes up our ham community and ultimately the FCC. I also believe that somehow - again, I don't have the exact solution in mind yet - an effort be spent countering the misinformation that proliferates so easily on certain forums. While QST and the ARRL website is significant, it shouldn't stop there given the popularity of other forums - and especially since non-members who have the right to comment to FCC about our proposals probably don't read QST or the League website. Again, we won't please some people and we shouldn't spend too much time and resources on these other forums, but our complete absence (essentially) basically cedes the discussion to those who are bent on twisting our good intentions and our reputation. Doing better with the above, in my opinion, will counter the seeming perception that the League is - to some degree - losing touch with our membership and the ham community we speak for. Or, at the minimum, a sense of renewed pride which seems to need a shot in the arm as Jim mentioned. Just food for thought. Jim and Carl raise very valid concerns and ideas. We should take a good look at these things, especially in light of the beating we seem to have taken from the latest proposal, especially before we face a new wave of opinion/rumor/judgment when said proposal is withdrawn after the mild controversy caused from amending it a few weeks ago. And especially, especially as the proposal is revised (again) and re-released to that same jury and ultimately the FCC. My two cents based on my members' candid thoughts and my observation. 73, Brian, N5ZGT _____ From: Jim Weaver [mailto:k8je@arrl.org] Sent: Monday, April 16, 2007 6:22 PM To: arrl-odv Subject: [arrl-odv:15436] HOW WE CAN AVOID LETRING OUR MEMBERS DOWN -- AGAIN Ladies & Gents, RE: RM-11306 etc. PROPOSAL: I suggest ARRL develop and staff an effective Intellectual Marketing operation for our main product which is the petitions for rulemaking we submit to the FCC. To my knowledge, we do not have one or two skill sets on staff at this time to operate this department. I do not believe we need to break the piggy bank to obtain these skill sets. Please note that the skills needed in an Intellectual Marketing operation are different from the skills needs to market existing ARRL product categories. Discussion: While deciding to vote my support for the EC reco to withdraw RM-11306, I became quite depressed over the damage that was caused not only to what remained of our effort to obtain Regulation by Bandwidth, but to the reputation of ARRL and Amateur Radio, and the future ability of ARRL to advocate effectively for the well-being of Amateur Radio. To say this as plainly as I can, it is my opinion that we, the Board and Management of ARRL, unintentionally abandoned our members through our mismanagement of RM-11306 and other petitions we have submitted to the FCC in recent years. Yes, I blame no one for the despicable showings ARRL initiatives have made than us who lead ARRL. This clearly includes me should, among everyone else on the Board and in Management, should have known better because of my experience. Based upon the philosophy that correcting a situation late is better than never, I ask that you follow my thinking. Evaluate it however you will, but please give it consideration. I realize there will be an initial thought that I am suggesting the Board "micro manage" staff, but I would hope it does not become necessary for us to do this. Where I believe we all have failed our members and the entire US Amateur Radio community is very basic. We have taken splendid regulatory concepts and dropped them into the laps of the FCC and our members without following the extremely basic principles of market planning, market development and market introduction. If we were a consumer product company, we would be out of business by now. We would have developed products and introduced them into consumer sales without determining either whether the consumer wants them or whether we can educate the consumer to learn he/she wants them. We further have not determined what roadblocks we are likely to face in our market introduction, and how to manage or avoid these roadblocks. For example, we did not anticipate the significance Mr. Teller would have on our "bandwidth" effort. Therefore, we did not take the critical steps necessary to negate his arguments before he sold these to unsuspecting, gullible, well-meaning members. We did not even have a plan to defuse Mr. Teller's slanted and often-false allegations once these were made. Please make no mistake about this. It is not Teller's fault he was successful, it is ours. Any quality, consumer marketing company would have developed and employed preventative tactics to nullify readily-anticipated attack. In addition, the company would have anticipated a variety of attacks on the product after its introduction, and would have prepared tools for the immediate management of these attacks upon their being made. We have not done this, at least during recent years. How does the consumer product company analogy fit the situation with ARRL? A cosmetic, cleaning product, food product, tool, etc. are the company's product. RM-11306 and other of our petitions to FCC are the Board's products. Just as no successful major consumer product company would attempt to market a product without first having done effective basic research, product research, consumer research, market research and development, and consumer relations damage control preparation, I suggest the Board needs to adopt equivalent planning and execution in our effort to develop effect petitions to obtain FCC rulemaking. The Board has done each of the necessary steps toward developing and promoting its recent petitions except that we have essentially ignored consumer research, market research and consumer relations damage control preparation. It is well known in the consumer industry that many products succeed or fail because of inadequate management of consumer affairs . . . not because the product is faulty. On Saturday, I spoke at a quarterly luncheon meeting of QCWA Chapter 1 in Cleveland. During this meeting, one of the members asked me if the ARRL has any clout with the FCC and if ARRL has enough of a following with its members to get anything done. This was telling! I suggest that if we are to enjoy a sense of respect for ARRL within the FCC, and are to redevelop (yes, redevelop) a sense of pride and true allegiance in ARRL membership among the majority of our members, we need to become successful in obtaining adoption of our petitions. Without such success, it seems to me that we relegate ourselves to being little more than an awards factory. Too, without success in Washington, why should we expect non-members to want to join us? Major consumer product companies spend major portions of their budgets on product development-marketing operations such as I've discussed. On the other hand, ARRL is graced with a wide variety of skills and experiences among its members. Properly identified and managed by staff or the Board, I suggest we could tap into the marketing experience of select members who would gladly volunteer their services to provide much of the skill and experience needed to develop a top notch Intellectual Marketing Department. Although the idea of using volunteers in such a position may seem foreign to ARRL, I would like to point out that the US FDA and other agencies have used the services of volunteers effectively on critical advisory boards for many years. This is not without cost, but greatly minimizes the cost as compared with direct hires to the agencies. Finally and rather obviously, I do not believe we can afford not to learn how to operate much more smartly than we have demonstrated recently. I will appreciate any discussion on this topic. What do you think? 73, Jim Jim Weaver, K8JE, Director ARRL Great Lakes Division 5065 Bethany Rd. Mason, OH 45040 E-mail: k8je@arrl.org; Tel.: 513-459-0142 ARRL - The Reason Amateur Radio Is! Members - The Reason ARRL Is!